Citing of Unpublished Opinions

On Jan. 25, 2008, the Wisconsin Judicial Council petitioned this
court for amendment to
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.23(3) to allow unpublished opinions to
be cited for their persuasive value.

IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be
held in the Supreme Court
Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on October 14, 2008, at
9:30 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's conference in the matter
shall be held
promptly following the public hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by
publication of a copy of
this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each
week for three
consecutive weeks, and in an official publication of the State Bar of
Wisconsin not more than 60 days
nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 1st day of July, 2008.

By the court:
David R. Schanker,
Clerk of Supreme Court

Petition

The Wisconsin Judicial Council respectfully petitions this Court to
enter an order,
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 751.12, adopting the following
amendment to Wis. Stat.

§ (Rule) 809.23(3).

SECTION 809.23(3) of the statutes is amended to read:

809.23(3) Citation ofUunpublished
opinions not cited
. (a) An unpublished
opinion is of no precedential value and for this
reason
may not be cited in any court of this state
as precedent or authority, except to support a claim of claim
preclusion, issue preclusion,
or the law of the case.

(b) In addition to the purposes specified in sub. (a), an
unpublished opinion may be
cited for its persuasive value. Because an unpublished opinion cited for
its persuasive value is
not precedent, it is not binding on any court of this state, and a court
need not distinguish
or otherwise discuss it.

Judicial Council Note: Section (3) was revised to reflect
that
unpublished Wisconsin
appellate opinions are increasingly available in electronic form. This
change also conforms to
the practice in numerous other jurisdictions, and is compatible with,
though more limited
than, Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, which abolished any restriction on the
citation of unpublished
federal court opinions, judgments, orders and dispositions issued on or
after Jan. 1, 2007.
The revision to Section (3) does not alter the non-precedential nature
of unpublished
Wisconsin appellate opinions.

Procedures for Reporting CLE Credits

In the matter of the Petition for Amendment to Supreme Court Rules
(SCR)
31.01, 31.03, 31.05, and 31.07, Relating to Procedures for Reporting
Continuing Legal
Education (CLE) Credits

Order 08-04

On April 1, 2008, the Board of Bar Examiners by its director, John E.
Kosobucki,
petitioned this court for an order amending Supreme Court Rules 31.01,
31.03, 31.05, and 31.07
relating to procedures for reporting continuing legal education (CLE)
credits.

IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be
held in the Supreme Court
Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Oct. 14, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's conference in the matter
shall be held
promptly following the public hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a
single publication of a
copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper
and in an
official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days
nor less than 30 days
before the date of the hearing.

Dated at Madison, Wis., this 1st day of July, 2008.

By the court:
David R. Schanker,
Clerk of Supreme Court

Petition

The Board of Bar Examiners, by its director John E. Kosobucki,
petitions the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin for orders amending Supreme Court Rules 31.01, 31.03, 31.05
and 31.07, relating
to procedures for reporting Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits. If
the Court issues
these orders, the affected sections of these rules will read as follows:

SCR 31.01 Definitions.

In this chapter:

* * * *

(1m) "CLE" means continuing legal education.

(2) "Committee" means a panel comprising at least 3
members of the board.

* * * *

(6m) "Repeated on-demand program" means an on-line
program delivered over the
Internet, consisting of a program previously approved by the board.

SCR 31.03 Reporting requirement.

(1) A lawyer shall file a written report under oath or affirmation on
designated CLE Form
1 with the board on or before the February 1 following the last day of
the reporting period.
The written report shall establish compliance with the attendance
requirement of SCR 31.02.

(2) A lawyer who has not satisfied SCR 31.02 and completed the
reporting requirement
under sub. (1) by the close of business on the February 1 following the
last day of the
reporting period shall be assessed a late fee of $100.

SCR 31.05 Approved hours.

(1) Activities that are approved by the board either before or after
the close of
the reporting period may be used to satisfy the requirement of SCR
31.02.

(2)(a) Up to 15 hours of CLE may be carried forward to the next
reporting period if all
of the following conditions are met:

1. The hours that are to be carried forward reflect attendance
during the reporting
period covered by the CLE Form 1.

2. These hours reflect attendance at courses that are approved
by the board either before
or after the close of the reporting period.

(b) CLE Programs approved by the board for legal ethics and
professional responsibility
may not be carried forward under this subsection for the purpose of
fulfilling the legal
ethics and professional responsibility requirement of SCR 31.02(2) but
may be carried forward
under par. (a).

* * * *

(5)(a) A repeated on-demand program may be used to satisfy
the requirement of SCR 31.02
if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The repeated on-demand program is approved prior to being
claimed for credit by a lawyer
on CLE Form 1, and the lawyer must take the on-demand program no later
than December 31 of the
year after the year in which approval was given.

2. Sponsors of the approved on-demand on-line program must
maintain a roster verifying
the attendance of all attorneys logged-in and paying for the program and
provide the roster to
the board if requested.

(b) No more than 10.0 credits may be claimed for repeated
on-demand programs during a
lawyer's reporting period.

(c) No legal ethics and professional responsibility credit is
allowed for a repeated
on-demand program.

(d) Repeated on-demand programs may not be used for
reinstatement, readmission,
or reactivation.

(2) The following standards shall govern the approval of CLE
activities by the board:

* * * *

(c) Except for repeated on-demand programs, a mechanically or
electronically
recorded activity will be approved only if a qualified instructor is
available to comment and
answer questions.

(d) CLE materials shall be prepared by and activities shall be
conducted by an individual
or group qualified by practical or academic experience.

* * * *

JUSTIFICATION: All of the proposed changes to SCR 31.01,
31.03, 31.05 and 31.07 are
designed to make CLE compliance easier for attorneys. Some of the
changes are based on the idea that
a lawyer who takes a CLE program should have CLE credit for it. At least
one of the
changes reflects current practice. Some of the others are insubstantial.

The proposed creation of SCR 31.01(1m), encompassing a
definition of the abbreviation
"CLE," is insubstantial. So is the proposed amendment to SCR
31.01(2), which corrects a
grammatical lapse. The proposed amendment to SCR 31.01(6m) makes clear
that the board is authorized
to approve CLE credits not only for programs recorded before live
audiences but also for
programs that are produced in studios. The change conforms with present
board practice.

The proposed amendment to SCR 31.01(6m), when read with the
proposed amendment to
SCR 31.05(5)(a)1, makes the board's approval of an on-line on-demand
program valid for up to
two years, and thus corresponds more closely to all lawyers' two-year
reporting periods. It
will be less confusing for lawyers to take advantage of these programs
if their approval does
not lapse until the end of a calendar year.

The proposed amendment to SCR 31.03(1) eliminates an ambiguity.
It is the current
practice for lawyers to report their CLE credits by the February 1
following their reporting
period, not (as the rule appears to require) by the second December 31
of their reporting period.

The board has two reasons for proposing an increase to $100 from
$50 in the fee for late
CLE reporting. First, the BBE regularly runs a deficit on the CLE side
of its operations.
Second, the board hopes that increasing the late fee will make it more
likely that lawyers will
file their CLE reports on time.

The proposed amendments to SCR 31.05 are intended to eliminate
penalties that
lawyers sometimes incur (unfairly, in the board's view) in reporting CLE
credits. Under the change
to SCR 31.05(1), lawyers will be entitled to credits for programs they
attend even if
program approval is not given until after a lawyer claims credit for it.
Under the present
SCR 31.05(2), lawyers lose up to 15 carry-over credits for programs they
attend if there is
any technical deficiency in their reporting. For example, lawyers who
have not yet satisfied
the ethics-credit requirement, or who file their reports after the
February 1 deadline lose
all the carry-over credits they would otherwise be entitled to. The
proposed amendments
eliminate that unfairness.

The proposed amendments to SCR 31.07(2)(c) and (d) are
insubstantial and reflect
current practice.